Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Laura Tyson, a former chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers, is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior adviser at the Rock Creek Group.

İt is known that Turkey has growth three times in last decade and while growing up economic datas were observed carefully.

As you can see in Turkish Central Bank datas, reserves has reached up to $ 130 billion meanwhile Turkey's budget deficit ,for 7 mounth in 2013, is +4 million turkish liras this means Turkey has not budget deficit. Moreover when the datas were compared for the financial market, induviduals have $100 billion debt but they also have $127 billion receivable for short term.

Now, how could you describe Turkey as a "most vulnerable" one ? In addition debt/GDP is about %36 in Turkey, it has the lower rates among the european states how they could be the safe one and Turkey not ? I see emerging economies has affected negatively but the lost of value for liras is %9-10 which every country might witness this kind of situation according to FED's important statements.

I don't agree with your argument because the datas for Turkey seems not well-examined. According to Morgan Stanley Turkey had to make decisions with IMF policymakers because Turkey's intellectual capability was stay away from suffice. But now Turkey will give $5 billion debt to IMF. How would you describe this ?

I tend to believe that economy has enormous components and political decisions is the one of the most effective policies among them and Turkey use this very well, please consider this.

A very nice piece about typhoon season for emerging market economies...

With increasing signs the North Atlantic central banks will tighten over the next several years, forward-looking financial markets are incorporating that tightening into their pricing of emerging-market assets today.

This means emerging-market central banks have three options:

First, they can tighten even before North Atlantic central banks do in order to maintain their currencies in their expected ranges, but at the cost of chilling production and employment in their economies.

Second, they can maintain their current monetary policy and so let their currencies fall to levels at which the next expected bound is upward, thus worsening their terms of trade but boosting their exports and thus production and employment.

Third, they can split the difference, raising interest rates enough but no more so that the decline in the currency value is small enough that the boost in exports neatly offsets the decline in domestic interest-sensitive spending and the economy becomes not too cold or too hot but just right.

So why are there problems? Why isn't this third option--maintaining full but not overfull employment by shifting resources out of interest-sensitive investment and wealth-based consumption-producing sectors and into exports a no-brainer?

The fear for India and elsewhere appears to be the expectations of future nominal currency values vis-à-vis the dollar are not well-anchored. Thus letting the rupee drop now does not restore confidence by making foreign exchange specullators expect the next bounce of the rupee will be upward in value. Rather, it destroys confidence by leading them to expect the unleashing of a domestic exchange-rate inflationary spiral Rakasha Rakshasha.

The fear is, as Rudy Dornbush used to put it, that India and other emerging markets are right now not North Atlantic but rather South American economies.